Johnny Coli Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 "The plan would increase to $1 trillion cumulatively by 2018 or approximately $130 billion per year," the report said. While the plan would extend health insurance to two-thirds of the 47 million people who currently lack it, the overhaul may worsen some problems, such as a shortage of primary care doctors, the analysis found. "Unless costs are cut, growing health care costs will increase the costs of Obama's plan dramatically over time and reduce the effectiveness of mandates. This could make the federal costs unsustainably high," the report said. Why don't you also quote the points made in the final two-thirds of the article that won't get you your virtual high-five from the rest of the right-wing suck-ups? Some costs could be recovered from payouts made to hospitals that care for the uninsured, the analysis found. It found that $25 billion, or about a third of the cost of Obama's plan, could come from existing payments to hospitals for uncompensated care. "Obama's proposal is likely to increase revenues but lower margins for providers, pharmaceutical companies and health plans that increasingly depend on government payment," the report said. While Obama's proposals would add costs up front, they would provide savings over the long term, especially by stressing prevention and wellness, said Jack Rodgers of the group's health policy economics practice. "PwC estimates that ... it would reduce national health spending by 9 percent by 2025 ... $680 billion, which is a pretty big deal," Rodgers said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 While Obama's proposals would add costs up front, they would provide savings over the long term, especially by stressing prevention and wellness, said Jack Rodgers of the group's health policy economics practice. So we can't promote prevention and wellness without dropping $1T first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Why don't you also quote the points made in the final two-thirds of the article that won't get you your virtual high-five from the rest of the right-wing suck-ups? So we'll save 9% by paying the other 91%? Still doesn't solve the prolem of supply (qualified medical professionals) and demand (patients) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 No one can give it a serious look without a least answering some of the basic questions I posed above. You're giving health care to people who can not afford it, but you also have to ask the question "Can they afford what is not covered?" Because if they can't, then whatever costs you think you're associating with this program go straight to hell until you factor in how much money is going to be required to cover the costs that the consumer can't or won't pay. No need to get that complex. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how increasing demand for a commodity in limited supply reduces costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 So we'll save 9% by paying the other 91%? Still doesn't solve the prolem of supply (qualified medical professionals) and demand (patients) Part of the problem is mixing apples and oranges. I wouldn't dispute that you can reduce health care costs significantly with a greater investment in public health (Minnesota had one of the healthiest populations and best public health infrastructures in the world...until Jesse Ventura was voted in to office and gutted the public health budget.) Where people get tripped up is, again, "public health" is not the sum total of everyone's individual health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 So we'll save 9% by paying the other 91%? Still doesn't solve the prolem of supply (qualified medical professionals) and demand (patients) Health insurance and health are are not the same thing, but a healthier population in the long run would cut costs and decrease demand. The article itself even sites that one third of the cost of the health insurance plan would be recovered from the reduction of paying for the people who currently have no insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Health insurance and health are are not the same thing, but a healthier population in the long run would cut costs and decrease demand. The article itself even sites that one third of the cost of the health insurance plan would be recovered from the reduction of paying for the people who currently have no insurance. Health insurance and health are not the same thing...despite every single "health care" plan that comes out of Washington being a "health insurance" plan...and you equate the two in your very next sentence anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Health insurance and health are not the same thing...despite every single "health care" plan that comes out of Washington being a "health insurance" plan...and you equate the two in your very next sentence anyway... Read my post again...the second "are" should have a "c" in front of it. And I don't equate the two, the article doesn't make the distinction. It says that Obama's health care plan would insure 95% of the people and would cost 75 billion, with 25 billion to be recovered from the cost hospitals get paid for uncompensated care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 No need to get that complex. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how increasing demand for a commodity in limited supply reduces costs. Excellent point. It's probably not a leap of faith to think that the government will ultimately need to start putting medical professions on their payroll. Maybe set up national care centers that are run by the government. It would be the only way to fill the demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Read my post again...the second "are" should have a "c" in front of it. And I don't equate the two, the article doesn't make the distinction. It says that Obama's health care plan would insure 95% of the people and would cost 75 billion, with 25 billion to be recovered from the cost hospitals get paid for uncompensated care. Oops. Your bad. And no, you didn't confuse the two. The article you cited did. Little matter, since you then paraphrase it here as "Obama's health care plan would insure..." Is it a health care plan? Or a health insurance plan? Or both? And how do Medicare and Medicaid fit in to this? (He's already said he intends to keep them, as distinct from any other plan.) Anyone know? Do we really need three plans to provide "care" (meaning "insurance"), for the indigent, the old, and the "merely" uninsured? That's what I love about this topic. It's not even a "Bush/Obama/Clinton" sucks issue (though Clinton DOES suck), nearly as much as it is a "the whole issue is such a cluster!@#$ of contrary special interests and idiotic misunderstanding that any plan coming out of DC is guaranteed to make it that much worse" issue. Is ensuring 95% of the nation has insurance going to decrease the risk of high blood pressure in blacks, or make surburban youths exercise more as a demographic group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 It's not even a "Bush/Obama/Clinton" sucks issue (though Clinton DOES suck), nearly as much as it is a "the whole issue is such a cluster!@#$ of contrary special interests and idiotic misunderstanding that any plan coming out of DC is guaranteed to make it that much worse" issue. Is ensuring 95% of the nation has insurance going to decrease the risk of high blood pressure in blacks, or make surburban youths exercise more as a demographic group? This is the absolute bottom line to this. I'm so tired of people talking like the government is going to wave some magic wand and everyone will suddenly have easy-to-use and easy-to-understand health care/insurance. Health care/insurance is already a massive red-tape bumble!@#$. The fact that people somehow think getting the government involved in this is going to IMPROVE this is absolutely mind-boggling. Unfortunately you also just questioned the sense of an Obama plan, and you are not to be relegated to the corner with all the other right wing whacknutjobidjits who dare question his plan...or lack thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Let us ask the important question. Why is health care so expensive? The answer is multi-faceted 1. Overuse of expensive and experimental treatments that aren't proven to be any better than cheaper methods. 2. Misuse/overuse of surgeries, MRI's, CAT scans, etc... 3. A very obese society that relies on medical treatment. 4. Lack of an independent center to evaluate new medical treatments. (European countries have these) Health care costs will only rise under any universal health care plan...as people will go to the doctor more as Uncle Sam will be footing the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Let us ask the important question. Why is health care so expensive? The answer is multi-faceted 1. Overuse of expensive and experimental treatments that aren't proven to be any better than cheaper methods. 2. Misuse/overuse of surgeries, MRI's, CAT scans, etc... 3. A very obese society that relies on medical treatment. 4. Lack of an independent center to evaluate new medical treatments. (European countries have these) Health care costs will only rise under any universal health care plan...as people will go to the doctor more seek less preventative care in preference for treatment of acute but preventable conditions as Uncle Sam will be footing the bill. Fixed it for you. The nature of health care in the US, both from the patient and practitioner perspective, is that people preferentially seek treatment for preventable illness rather than prevent illness to begin with. It's the difference between taking statins, or eating right and exercising. (Note: yes, I know that some people actually NEED statins, because of their metabolic cholesterol. Many don't. So anyone who argues that point...I'm ignoring you.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Health insurance and health are are not the same thing, but a healthier population in the long run would cut costs and decrease demand. The article itself even sites that one third of the cost of the health insurance plan would be recovered from the reduction of paying for the people who currently have no insurance. I think a healthier population would add to the main problem we have now, an older/aging population. Healthier means that life expectancy would grow dramatically. You think social security and Medicare have issues now wait until life expectancy reaches the 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 I think a healthier population would add to the main problem we have now, an older/aging population. Healthier means that life expectancy would grow dramatically. You think social security and Medicare have issues now wait until life expectancy reaches the 90s. A valid economic point...but I'm not sure I buy that as a reason to keep people sick and make sure they die early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 To those who say we have to "control costs" - I say line them up and have them sign a contract that they will not accept any form of care that has been improved from this day forward. "Controlling costs" is tantamount to saying "stop progress". We do some amazing freakin' things in this country with regards to health care and furthering our knowledge of our bodies. That costs money. I'm sure the medicine of the 1950's would be pretty cheap today. Some penicillin, a cold wet rag when you had a fever, the occasional lobotomy... But we want the best. We want it to be perfect (or we'll sue) and it better not interfere with my cell phone contract or Directv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Have any of you actually seen how Medicare works? or, should I say, DOESN'T work? and youw ant to grant the Feds the ability to control the entire health care system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Have any of you actually seen how Medicare works? or, should I say, DOESN'T work? and youw ant to grant the Feds the ability to control the entire health care system? Isn't it a shame that the government hasn't stopped people from dying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Isn't it a shame that the government hasn't stopped people from dying? And that's germane to my post, HOW? Do you know how Medicare works? Do you know WHY people with Medicare need to have a supplement/advantage plan? BECAUSE IT SUCKS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 And that's germane to my post, HOW? Do you know how Medicare works? Do you know WHY people with Medicare need to have a supplement/advantage plan? BECAUSE IT SUCKS. just needs more funding is all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts